any missile with a non zero angular rate is not a threat since it is no longer on a trajectory that will result in an intercept.)
That is absolutely not true. Just because the missile is not on a collision trajectory does not mean that the seeker is still not looking towards last known target location and the targeting computer is not able to re-acquire the target.
No you have;[…]
Again not true:
1st gen → Uncooled pin-scan
2nd gen → Cooled conical-scan / FM
3rd gen →Imaging Seekers: IIR/Rosette scan seekers
Source: Review of Development of IR Guidance Techniques I by C. Feng
Approved for Public Release: Distribution Unlimited
Quote from Source:
- The third period is after the mid-seventies. At that
time, long-wave infrared elements operating between 8 and
14micrometer waveband were successfully developed. In
particular, applications of high-performance HgCdTe (CMT) linear
array infrared apparatus and infrared imaging technique have been
gradually matured, thus having a leap forward in infrared
guidance technology, with the emergence of the third-generation
infrared guidance weapons of infrared subimaging and infrared
imaging with precision guidance. One of the schemes in the third
generation is the use of dual color (infrared/ultraviolet or
dual-color infrared) rose-coil-shaped scanning in the subimaging
guidance system, such as the improved version of the Stinger
(Stinger-Post of the U.S.), the improved version of the Mistral
(of France) and the SAM-13 (of the Soviet Union). In another
arrangement, linear array or small-area infrared devices are used
with the imaging guidance system of optical scanning imaging,
such as the Maverick AGM-65D/F of the U.S. in using 16 (4x4)
element optical guidance CMT infrared devices, and 20 phases
internal rotating drum reflective mirror to realize scanning
11
images of ground targets. In the late eighties, staring-type
infrared focal-plane array (IRFPA) detectors were successfully
developed in the U.S. and Western Europe by using electronic
self-automatic scanning to replace optical device scanning in the
second-generation infrared imaging guidance weapon system. The
representing models are the advanced intermediate-range antitank
missile weapon system (AAWSM of the U.S.) and the long-range
antitank missile Trigat of the U.K, France, and Germany, under
development. The AAWSM is expected to complete its engineering
development in 1992 by using 64x64 element CMT single-lens CCD
staring infrared focal-plane array of the U.S.
Example:
Both AIM-9X and the R-74M are designated in official nomenclatures as 3rd Gen missiles.
AIM-9X is considered a 5th gen missiles in the Sidewinder Family itself, but in terms of IR missile technology is still designated as 3rd generation missile.
all IIR missiles will see a similar image simply because of physics (as long as they have at least 1 polarisation filter) and the original beam width is not 50mm wide or something (absurdly high power requirement).
You don’t know that. You haven’t tested a specific misile with specific LDIRCM nor have you provided specific case studies that showcase this.
(by the way the vibetsk-s/president brochure only states IR not IIR)
In Russian nomenclature “IR missile” stands for all missiles based on IR seekers. There is no special term for imaging ones like in English. (IIR)
for CIRCM???
I did. According to the glamorous (and ambiguous) marketing claims it should work again all known missiles, thanx to multiband laser
President-S is also marketed to have multiband laser. (they call it "multi-spectral, which in opticians ‘slang’ means that it has broader coverage across multiple spectral regions, but they probably wanted to say “multiband”.
yeah… it can have multiple emitter reflector pairs on a single aircraft.
I don’t have information that a single President-S can be equiped with multiple turrets.
Are you sure there are no 2 fully independent systems on the Su-57?
Can you provide a source?
i bet you ALSO dont know that the peak and nominal power draw listed on the president-S brochure is not for the emitter reflector pair but rather the ENTIRE vibetsk-5 sytem
I know that. But you should also know that the other components of the system don’t draw that much power. The most power hungry element is indeed the laser emitter. There is also listed power draw during standby mode at 1.2 kW and during active supression (short term) 3.5 kW.
If you substract 1.2 from 3.5 and another ~200 Watts for Servos and other electronics during active Beam steering (which is quite a lot but lets be conservative), you get 2.1 kW. Knowing power efficiency for QCL Lasers (20%), OPO (15~20%), Fiber Lasers (~20%)
We can calculate approximate optical Output Power for the laser to be up to:
420Watt (if QCL or Fiber)
315Watt (if Parametric Oscillator)
Which at first sight is 1.5 ~ 2 times that of Northrop’s CIRCM but if the actual efficiency is a bit lower and more power is used for other parts of the systems is pretty much the same as the CIRCM, which comes at 250Watts peak. It is of course possible that Northrop deliberately ‘lied’ about the output power of the CIRCM and the actual value is higher, for example 300~350 Watts, which again is basically the same as the one we can estimate for the President-S.
the meaning of which is, that while your BASIC argument is CORRECT, it is an anomalous case. only if the incoming missiles are within a few degrees of seperation from each other WITHIN the DIRLCM beams FOV then it can happen to affect both. thats why it says that it can affect 2.
Can you elaborate: What says that “it can affect two”?
Regarding single turret affecting multiple missiles:
when in reality, the case of a single reflector/emitter affecting multiple missiles would be the rarity.
What if the turrets can really move as fast and precise as you earlier claimed? What if when multiple missiles approach the beam simply hops between them with frequency higher than the
Not according to Northrop, Leonardo and KRET.
In fact, the primary goal of the DIRCM is to completely deny missile guidance and cause the MANPAD to miss by a very large distance and as early in the engagement as possible, in order to create the largest possible miss distance. The ability to jam a missile as soon as possible is also instrumental to allow a multiple threat scenario to be defeated effectively, even with only one laser firing on multiple targets. As an example, we can consider two missiles launched on the same side of the aircraft, so only one DIRCM turret would be able to see and engage them.
So it turns out that if the turrets can be turned as reliably and as precisely as you claim (which is completely possible with modern servo drives), the LDIRCM can ‘hop’ the beam between multiple missiles, meaning it sequentially illuminates multiple threats while applying a short dwell time on each one before switching to the next?
The deeper I dig into this, the more I begin to think that LDIRCMs might actually be using a very tight beam and probably primarily rely on damaging the FPA rather than simply dazzling.
Why am I thinking this?
Well if the manufacturers claim that no continuous illumination (per missile) is needed, then the principle of guidance disruption cannot be as simple as dazzling the seeker. Because when the laser switches to another target, the dazzling effect would be lost, leading to potential re-lock.
So what are your thoughts on this?
(And I will be waiting to see the full document that you quoted, or you can tell me its name and I will try to find it.)
Edit:
I forgot to add that Polarization filters have orientation and Laser beams’ polarization can be controlled, or even converted (linear>circular) for example with waveplates or ICA, although I doubt this is implemented due to complexity.
